On Tuesday, I went to the Libertarian Gubernatorial Debate, which was held right in Hughes-Trigg. It was something everyone should have attended, whether they are libertarians or not, because it provided an interesting window of opportunity to see exactly how politics work.
Of course, the best way to know for sure where a politician stands “on the issues” is to look at a list of his decisions, what he’s voted for, and basically what he’s done in office, but for the newbies just entering the fray, the debate is a chance to let voters see them in action and get a feel for who they are and where they stand. Even for the seasoned veterans, debates are an opportunity to let the people see them and form an opinion as to their character, for good or ill.
It really did make a difference—for me at least—to actually see the candidates live, in person, discussing the issues and what their own plans for the future are. I am very aware of the difference between watching someone on a screen and seeing them in person.
Some are naturally more photogenic than others, and a person who seems better on TV may not be the same person if you watch her live. Legendary director and acting teacher Constantin Stanislavki said that there exists a stage presence in some that could make them appear more appealing than others on stage but that was imperceptible under normal circumstances. However, I couldn’t very well have a sit-down chat with the candidates, so this was better than nothing.
In this live environment, some candidates were obviously better than others. Lucky for me, because this is an opinion piece, I can stop pretending to be unbiased and offer you my opinion. By far the best candidate was Jeff Daiell.
All the candidates, to an extent, had the same sorts of policies (they are all Libertarians, after all). They did, however, differ on methods to go about carrying out these policies, and Daiell’s plans were the most satisfying. For example, in the opening statements, before any question was even asked, he said he wanted to limit police spending to violence, theft, and fraud, with a low priority on prohibition-type law enforcement. How simple is that? All the money we’re spending on keeping alcohol out of the hands of minors (which is really parents’ responsibility anyway) could be used elsewhere.
Another thing about Daiell that I liked was how he did not thank his opponents for coming or his family for being there that night in what would have clearly been a calculated move to get sympathy (yes, Steve Nichols and Ed Tidwell, I’m looking at you). That kind of politician-y thing only irks me, and in no way indicates that these people know how to be effective statesmen. As a matter of fact, part of Daiell’s appeal is his–no offense intended–grumpy old man demeanor, which gives one the impression that he’s not going to beat around the bush; he’s just going to tell it like it is and make a plan to fix it, which is exactly what he did.
Of course, some of the other candidates told it like it is as well–in a manner of speaking. I’m speaking, of course, about Katherine Youngblood-Lass, who was rather explicit in saying that the most important thing we could do was preserve our liberty, because liberty is just about the most important thing we have, and that it is absolutely essential that we liberty our liberty with a healthy dose of liberty thrown in for good measure, otherwise there can be no liberty for anyone.
Okay, so she didn’t actually say that, but she was close, and she did say that liberty was “selling well these days.” Plus, she complained about our corrupt federal educational system, and how children who go to school are not being taught to love Texas or America or liberty for that matter.
Do with that tidbit what you will, but I know whom I’m voting for.
Trey Treviño is a sophomore CTV major. He can be reached for comment at
[email protected].
